Russian worries or just posturing?
If Trump is elected we won't have to worry about. He'll give them whatever they want in exchange for some prime real-estate in Moscow. Why do you think they have been working with wiki leaks to smear Clinton? She and Putin really don't like each other. Trump regularly expresses his admiration for Putin.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been speaking with a Russian family who have resided in the USA for 16 years (the husband 25 years). They have just purchased an appartment in St Petersburg (Russia) for 'when' they have to leave America. When people put their $ into perceived risk you know we live in unpredictable times. They also think that Putin is the best state leader the country has ever had; based upon the quality of life the citizens enjoy now compared to immediately after the wall came down.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Russian economy is going south and that is a major source of issue for Putin even though it is perhaps being downplayed by Moscow at the moment. Putin will firmly push Assad to victory in Aleppo, no matter what the cost of human life, and Assad's regime will continue to rule the parts of Syria that matter. That's Moscow's strategic end-state for this mess. However it looks like they'll now have to do it without being able to blame the West for things that go wrong. I think Admiral K is just posturing, should the West push a no-fly zone of [arguably] very limited utility.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note that here in Russia nobody shuts down CNN, BBC, France24, DW, Euronews, etc. (just mentioning the channels I am zapping through and periodically watch). And do not tell me that they are telling truth and bloody RT is only spreading lies.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one has shut down RT. The fact that the banks no longer wish handle RT's account in the UK may very well be to do with the fact that Putin isn't paying his bills. Obviously, this then leads to a glorious bit of propaganda where RT plays the victim of the evil West. 
How's the funding for Stop the War going? A bit ironic that, wouldn't you say?
How's the funding for Stop the War going? A bit ironic that, wouldn't you say?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mrs H dragged me to the Cheltenham LitFest last week
There was a really good panel discussion between a Russian lady who specialised in oil, two UK Kremlin watchers and the moderator - who was Lt-Gen. Ben Hodges, Commander US Army Europe.
They pretty much agreed on the following:-
1. Russia is in a state of "mobilisation" to recover economically and militarily the lost ground (not actual acreage!) from 1988-2005
2. We are always surprised by being surprised by events involving Russia
3. They are using Syria etc as a test ground for people, tactics and kit
4. There is a major push inside Russia to bring on younger, brighter people
5. the Russians reckon that whoever wins the election in the USA means a tougher time ahead - so there is a short window of political (rather than military) opportunity - maybe to cement in Assad etc
6. Mr Putin is important but definitely not all-powerful
7. Militarily the Baltic States are not a very serious concern after recent changes - we should worry about the Black Sea & Caucasus - Romania and especially Turkey
8. Break even for Russian oil is nowhere near the $80 a bbl quoted in the Western Press - it's more like $ 30 in fact
9. Sanctions are important politically rather than economically but they are forcing the Russians to look at alternative sources for ANY critical kit currently sourced from the West - this will act as a long-term brake on their economy
10. Big swing towards China
11. Difficulty in getting the attention of politicians for any length of time - tho it was admitted that just about everyone has other fish to fry
I have to say I was extremely impressed by Lt Gen Hodges - incisive, very sharp, intellectually robust and a million miles from the usual idea of a US SO. I only wish I thought we had people that good in the UK ....
There was a really good panel discussion between a Russian lady who specialised in oil, two UK Kremlin watchers and the moderator - who was Lt-Gen. Ben Hodges, Commander US Army Europe.
They pretty much agreed on the following:-
1. Russia is in a state of "mobilisation" to recover economically and militarily the lost ground (not actual acreage!) from 1988-2005
2. We are always surprised by being surprised by events involving Russia
3. They are using Syria etc as a test ground for people, tactics and kit
4. There is a major push inside Russia to bring on younger, brighter people
5. the Russians reckon that whoever wins the election in the USA means a tougher time ahead - so there is a short window of political (rather than military) opportunity - maybe to cement in Assad etc
6. Mr Putin is important but definitely not all-powerful
7. Militarily the Baltic States are not a very serious concern after recent changes - we should worry about the Black Sea & Caucasus - Romania and especially Turkey
8. Break even for Russian oil is nowhere near the $80 a bbl quoted in the Western Press - it's more like $ 30 in fact
9. Sanctions are important politically rather than economically but they are forcing the Russians to look at alternative sources for ANY critical kit currently sourced from the West - this will act as a long-term brake on their economy
10. Big swing towards China
11. Difficulty in getting the attention of politicians for any length of time - tho it was admitted that just about everyone has other fish to fry
I have to say I was extremely impressed by Lt Gen Hodges - incisive, very sharp, intellectually robust and a million miles from the usual idea of a US SO. I only wish I thought we had people that good in the UK ....
If Trump is elected we won't have to worry about. He'll give them whatever they want in exchange for some prime real-estate in Moscow. Why do you think they have been working with wiki leaks to smear Clinton? She and Putin really don't like each other. Trump regularly expresses his admiration for Putin.
If you think that poking a nuclear power every now and then is smart strategy then go vote for her, but don't accuse Trump if SHTF.
Perhaps we could get one of the morons who authorised the 1999 bombing of Belgrade to start posting on here, because all this Russian silliness stems directly from our actions in the former Yugoslavia. It was breathtaking stupidity that failed to take account of how the Russians would view such action in the territory of a former ally.
Mrs H dragged me to the Cheltenham LitFest last week
There was a really good panel discussion between a Russian lady who specialised in oil, two UK Kremlin watchers and the moderator - who was Lt-Gen. Ben Hodges, Commander US Army Europe.
They pretty much agreed on the following:-
1. Russia is in a state of "mobilisation" to recover economically and militarily the lost ground (not actual acreage!) from 1988-2005
2. We are always surprised by being surprised by events involving Russia
3. They are using Syria etc as a test ground for people, tactics and kit
4. There is a major push inside Russia to bring on younger, brighter people
5. the Russians reckon that whoever wins the election in the USA means a tougher time ahead - so there is a short window of political (rather than military) opportunity - maybe to cement in Assad etc
6. Mr Putin is important but definitely not all-powerful
7. Militarily the Baltic States are not a very serious concern after recent changes - we should worry about the Black Sea & Caucasus - Romania and especially Turkey
8. Break even for Russian oil is nowhere near the $80 a bbl quoted in the Western Press - it's more like $ 30 in fact
9. Sanctions are important politically rather than economically but they are forcing the Russians to look at alternative sources for ANY critical kit currently sourced from the West - this will act as a long-term brake on their economy
10. Big swing towards China
11. Difficulty in getting the attention of politicians for any length of time - tho it was admitted that just about everyone has other fish to fry
I have to say I was extremely impressed by Lt Gen Hodges - incisive, very sharp, intellectually robust and a million miles from the usual idea of a US SO. I only wish I thought we had people that good in the UK ....
There was a really good panel discussion between a Russian lady who specialised in oil, two UK Kremlin watchers and the moderator - who was Lt-Gen. Ben Hodges, Commander US Army Europe.
They pretty much agreed on the following:-
1. Russia is in a state of "mobilisation" to recover economically and militarily the lost ground (not actual acreage!) from 1988-2005
2. We are always surprised by being surprised by events involving Russia
3. They are using Syria etc as a test ground for people, tactics and kit
4. There is a major push inside Russia to bring on younger, brighter people
5. the Russians reckon that whoever wins the election in the USA means a tougher time ahead - so there is a short window of political (rather than military) opportunity - maybe to cement in Assad etc
6. Mr Putin is important but definitely not all-powerful
7. Militarily the Baltic States are not a very serious concern after recent changes - we should worry about the Black Sea & Caucasus - Romania and especially Turkey
8. Break even for Russian oil is nowhere near the $80 a bbl quoted in the Western Press - it's more like $ 30 in fact
9. Sanctions are important politically rather than economically but they are forcing the Russians to look at alternative sources for ANY critical kit currently sourced from the West - this will act as a long-term brake on their economy
10. Big swing towards China
11. Difficulty in getting the attention of politicians for any length of time - tho it was admitted that just about everyone has other fish to fry
I have to say I was extremely impressed by Lt Gen Hodges - incisive, very sharp, intellectually robust and a million miles from the usual idea of a US SO. I only wish I thought we had people that good in the UK ....
Thanks for the decent synopsis.
I don't worry about Russia because quite simply it knows the cost of a war.
Every child in school knows of WW2 and the cost of it in Russian blood.
Doubtful in US that many kids know of WW2.
US Gen seems to know what he is on about great credit to him but US politicians and chickenhwaks who ran from Vietnam service want a war to make them rich. Its not their kids who will die so what do they care.
Perhaps we could get one of the morons who authorised the 1999 bombing of Belgrade to start posting on here, because all this Russian silliness stems directly from our actions in the former Yugoslavia. It was breathtaking stupidity that failed to take account of how the Russians would view such action in the territory of a former ally.
Therefore you just told someone not to rely on the word of US President as next administration not obligated to honour his words...................
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH,
A very nice post, thanks. I once attended a conference where Lt-Gen Hodges was among keynote speakers and I agree with your characteristic. Also rather agree on all items except for 4 (younger, brighter people). Yes, of course, "all the king's men" here are now much younger than old Kremlin marasmatics in the Soviet era. But most of them are bad professionals, prone to corruption, etc. They jump from one chair to another in parliament, government, other administrations, but with no visible results.
Racedo,
Absolutely right. I would also add Kohl whom stupid Gorby and then drunked Yeltsin trusted totally.
But the main point to change the course in Russia was bombing of Yugoslavia. With the help of bombs and missiles a good piece of territory was given to criminal elements and then named as an independent state (of Kosovo). All sides of conflict were to blame for war crimes, but absolute majority of those who were toughly sentenced were from one side, the Serbians. After that only idiots would keep believing that you are safe just because some western leaders are currently kind to you. They are rotating every 4-5-6 years and no guarantee that the next guy would not order "let's take them away, too".
A very nice post, thanks. I once attended a conference where Lt-Gen Hodges was among keynote speakers and I agree with your characteristic. Also rather agree on all items except for 4 (younger, brighter people). Yes, of course, "all the king's men" here are now much younger than old Kremlin marasmatics in the Soviet era. But most of them are bad professionals, prone to corruption, etc. They jump from one chair to another in parliament, government, other administrations, but with no visible results.
Racedo,
Absolutely right. I would also add Kohl whom stupid Gorby and then drunked Yeltsin trusted totally.
But the main point to change the course in Russia was bombing of Yugoslavia. With the help of bombs and missiles a good piece of territory was given to criminal elements and then named as an independent state (of Kosovo). All sides of conflict were to blame for war crimes, but absolute majority of those who were toughly sentenced were from one side, the Serbians. After that only idiots would keep believing that you are safe just because some western leaders are currently kind to you. They are rotating every 4-5-6 years and no guarantee that the next guy would not order "let's take them away, too".
Last edited by A_Van; 19th Oct 2016 at 17:16.
Racedo,
Every four years we have a Presidential Election, and every two Years we have Congressional Elections.
The UK changes government by a different manner but you do change as well.
Is it a surprise to you that Foreign Policy alters with various Governments?
Is your Parliament and Prime Minister bound by previous decisions of predecessors or do they feel quite free to change course when they see it the thing to do?
Unless it was a Treaty or International Accord that gave some permanence to the Terms and Conditions....how can the President or Prime Minister be criticized if they take different paths than their predecessors?
Another quick question....this article says the Russians are challenging the Americans by steaming Naval Units through the English Channel.
Can you explain why it is the Americans being challenged and not the British, French, and other NATO nations?
Do we even homeport a Warship in any NATO nation?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/201378...glish-channel/
Every four years we have a Presidential Election, and every two Years we have Congressional Elections.
The UK changes government by a different manner but you do change as well.
Is it a surprise to you that Foreign Policy alters with various Governments?
Is your Parliament and Prime Minister bound by previous decisions of predecessors or do they feel quite free to change course when they see it the thing to do?
Unless it was a Treaty or International Accord that gave some permanence to the Terms and Conditions....how can the President or Prime Minister be criticized if they take different paths than their predecessors?
Another quick question....this article says the Russians are challenging the Americans by steaming Naval Units through the English Channel.
Can you explain why it is the Americans being challenged and not the British, French, and other NATO nations?
Do we even homeport a Warship in any NATO nation?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/201378...glish-channel/
Every four years we have a Presidential Election, and every two Years we have Congressional Elections.
The UK changes government by a different manner but you do change as well.
Is it a surprise to you that Foreign Policy alters with various Governments?
The UK changes government by a different manner but you do change as well.
Is it a surprise to you that Foreign Policy alters with various Governments?
Native Americans used to this in 19th century.
Either your countrys word means something or it doesn't.
Is your Parliament and Prime Minister bound by previous decisions of predecessors or do they feel quite free to change course when they see it the thing to do?
Unless it was a Treaty or International Accord that gave some permanence to the Terms and Conditions....how can the President or Prime Minister be criticized if they take different paths than their predecessors?
Unless it was a Treaty or International Accord that gave some permanence to the Terms and Conditions....how can the President or Prime Minister be criticized if they take different paths than their predecessors?
Another quick question....this article says the Russians are challenging the Americans by steaming Naval Units through the English Channel.
Can you explain why it is the Americans being challenged and not the British, French, and other NATO nations?
Do we even homeport a Warship in any NATO nation?
Can you explain why it is the Americans being challenged and not the British, French, and other NATO nations?
Do we even homeport a Warship in any NATO nation?
@SASless:
The US Sixth Fleet still has its flagship in Gaeta, Italy.
@racedo:
If you bought the soap Assange is selling, that's fine, but to pretend that he is a purveyor of Truth is another matter. The American government officials do what they can to influence (and sometimes fool) the media, but to pretend that it is an arm of the US government is profoundly false. (Some news organs are more easily coopted than others, to be sure ...)
I realize that you have a few axes to grind (I suppose we all do) but talking out of your backside does not strengthen your case.
The US Sixth Fleet still has its flagship in Gaeta, Italy.
@racedo:
WIkileaks tells us media just another arm of Government and not that bright.
I realize that you have a few axes to grind (I suppose we all do) but talking out of your backside does not strengthen your case.
If you bought the soap Assange is selling, that's fine, but to pretend that he is a purveyor of Truth is another matter. The American government officials do what they can to influence (and sometimes fool) the media, but to pretend that it is an arm of the US government is profoundly false. (Some news organs are more easily coopted than others, to be sure ...)
However we have had Bild in Germany have its editorials dictated by Central Government for decades, they openly admitted that.
UK Media has always been a tool of Government................ hell even some of senior Journos were outed as part of Intelligence network.
US media virtually ignoring a candidate's negatives and blanking anything negative posted against them is not a good democracy.
Wikileaks wouldn't need to exist if media did their job, instead Media cower for political favours and refuse to ask Politicians in power any questions.
I restate for your edification: no, the US Media is NOT an arm of the US government. (That said, it's got its share of issues that annoy the hell out of me).
I don't disagree with you that what Assange did with Wikileaks was of interest, whatever I think of his motives. It's a manifestation of both the information age, how utterly incompetent some people in my government are in information security, and how easily exploited twits like Manning are. That isn't new, though, the exploitation of minor members of opposing sides was rampant during the Cold War. It's part of the game.